The Internal Combustion Catapult - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Internal Combustion Catapult. The C14 Internal Combustion Catapult was developed in the 1950s and successfully launched planes. Used the same launch engine as the steam catapult. Was more powerful than the steam catapult. Used JP5 and compressed air burned in a single large combustor.

Copyright Complaint Adult Content Flag as Inappropriate

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The Internal Combustion Catapult' - gada

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

Inability of C14 catapult to deliver consistent end speeds to launched aircraft and “manmade reliability issues” removed it from consideration for USS Enterprise. Replaced by the C13 steam catapult aboard the USS Enterprise at new construction.

Bank of large air compressors intended to supply the C14 catapult still aboard the Enterprise.

1950’s technology ready to support the ICCALS catapult technology in spite of “reliability issues” and 2010’s technology is ready to support an internal combustion catapult superior to either the steam catapult or EMALS

Technology changes made to improve the technical viability and performance of the Internal Combustion Catapult:

More efficient oxidizer and oxidizer management

Subdivision of the combustion event into multiple combustors which average out combustion instabilities to deliver a smooth and controllable highly variable mass flow of combustion gas and steam from the combustor assembly to the launch engine.

A controlled constant or increasing launch acceleration pressure during the launch event over the length of the launch stroke

Is current technology with almost all of the components off the shelf. The system can operate with all COTS hardware, but would be more efficient with optimized hardware.

Makes little demand on the propulsion plant and reduces reactor fuel burn-up. Only need spray water for cooling and steam which is less than 3% of the 1320 pounds of water per launch required for the C13-2 steam catapult.

Up to 100 million ftlbs delivered power with 33 million additional ftlbs in reserve compared to half or 70 million ftlbs delivered by EMALS operating at the upper limit of its capability. This is a function for ICCALS of the number of combustor modules deployed and fuel burned per unit time.

Allows backfit of ICCALS system into the existing Nimitz Class Carriers providing catapults that exceed the capability of the EMALS catapult while providing ¾ of a million pounds topside weight reduction over 50 ft above waterline and eliminating the “launch box” wind over deck requirement.

Visited NAWC, Lakehurst, NJ several times to site check the ground based C13 Mod 0 and C13 Mod 2 launchers. Determined that temporary backfit of the ICCALS system is feasible for the C13-0 catapult or the C13-2 catapult

Hosted a carrier tour for team personnel. Inspected catapults, control rooms, accumulators and steam piping areas of ship.

In May of 1998, NNS management decided that it would be more desirable to the Navy for NNS to support EMALS, thus NNS terminated my ICCALS program and assumed the role of systems integrator.

The ICCALS program was producing and testing hardware when it was terminated, leaving only the General Atomics electromagnetic catapult in competition as a systems supplier in place of the C13-2 steam catapult

Current additional projected CVN78 budget over-runs driven by EMALS are estimated to be up to $560 million.

Total costs for an ICCALS system installed are estimated to be less than $25 million for the first catapult and less than $10 Million each for following installations. Could install ICCALS on 10 operating carriers for $415 million.

Installation of EMALS hardware into land based prototype starts no later than 7 months after funding.

7 months is sufficient time to build and start testing an ICCALS prototype system, using existing Naval assets. The rather ambitious schedule is based upon almost all of the hardware being off the shelf with developmental effort being at a minimum.

The greatest effort will be in updating and validating the current FY1998 control system design.

Reduces the required Tavg for the reactor/core burn-up by elimination of ship-produced steam and 1320 lbs of distilled water required per C13-2 launch, or eliminates the requirement to generate the EMALS electrical launch energy.

ICCALS is backfittable at low cost to all of the C13-1 and C13-2 operational carriers, providing a great increase to the fleet in capability, both offensive and defensive and range of planes launched from .

EMALS is not backfittable to the Nimitz Class cariers.

Addditional combustion catapult information is available at Bob Holland_com

The latest estimates of CVN78 cost and schedule growth from NAVSEA if EMALS is not ready is $560 Million and a year slip in delivery to install a C13-2 cat system which affects CVN79 start schedule and funding.

The ICCALS system can be built and qualified at minimum cost in time to insure the present CVN78 build schedule as against additional EMALS slippage.

After the X-15 project I was transferred to the Internal Combustion Catapult project.Ok, You say "What is that?". First let me explain the catapult.

Planes that require flying speed are launched from an aircraft carrier by a catapult using high pressure steam. The problems with this are:

Fresh water is needed to generate the steam

As the catapult moves the pressure drops. The initial "kick" is very high and then the acceleration drops off. The plane and pilot may be subjected to as much as 5G's at the start to get enough speed to get airborne.

This is why aircraft carriers always turn into the wind and increase speed to launch planes. To conserve fresh water and reduce stress to pilots and planes.

I was transfered to Lakehurst New Jersey. The left catapult is steam, the center was the Reaction Motors catapult and the large building to the right is the steam house required to generate the steam for the steam catapult.

Right about now you are probably wondering "if this thing was so great then why are we still using steam catapults?